Don't reply yet with just "yes, those lens are awful!". Read me out.
I've been an owner of a 400D for almost a year. When I bought the camera, it came with the standard lenses, a battery grip, and and extra 55-200mm USM lens.
I've been reading the reviews about the budle lens, and I don't understand why is it so bad? My only complaint about it is that it seems to soften the images a bit to much (seems like blur almost). But no serious stuff. I previously borrowed a Olympus camera (can't remeber the camera or the lens) and the color fringing was horrific (in mine I can't usually see any).
So my question is where is the bad quality and why is it bad. (I can post some photos of mine so you have a example).
And my second question is, since I own a 55-200mm what is the best lens to upgrade to (short budget). Also, I like to try to take macro pictures (a friend of mine said the budle lens is macro capable but I don't know).

As for upgrading, it depends... are you thinking of upgrading the 18-55mm, or the 55-200mm? Or both?

Also, it's crucial to think about how you're finding your current setup limiting. For example, do you want something which zooms longer or wider? Something with stabilisation? Something with a brighter aperture?

Sometimes you can also feel the need to upgrade when in fact everything's ok!

I generally only take pictures from F8 and higher, mostly F8 (trademark of mine).
I don't quite know if the 55-200 is worth upgrading.On that I just have a complaint: the minimum focusing distance. So, think just the 18-55 is worth upgrading.

Hi netbreak, I'm still not sure where or how you're finding your existing lenses limiting... From your last message it sounds like it's only the closest focusing distance you're not happy with, in which case you should get a macro lens.

If you're just after better overall quality from your 18-55mm though, then upgrade it for one of the models in that Canon group test...

I think it's all relative. I doubt any kit lens would be classed as other than very good when compared to the lenses on compact cameras. On the other hand the same lens might be considered bad by snooty people who own very expensive lenses.

OK, that's a bit harsh but beauty is, to some extent, in the eye of the beholder. Any optical defects in kit lenses are unlikely to be a problem unless you like to make large prints or "pixel peep ".

Bob is spot on. Don't let people that have spent a lot of money on lenses convince you that your kit lens is bad. If the lens that you are using is giving you the photos that you want and like, then by all means keep it. Lens snobbery is rampant on 'other' photography forums.

If your images are a bit soft at the edges you could try shooting in AV mode at f/8. That might help sharpen up you images. Corner sharpness is one of the most difficult things for optics to overcome and even some of the most expensive "L" lenses suffer from it.

Shorter focusing distance = macro. I really like the looks of the EF-S 60mm macro.

Well i do like to pixel peep, that's why I know the softness in the picture it's not only on the edges... (but maybe I'm expecting to much from 10mp).
Also I allways shoot in manual with F8 (or higher).
Also with the 18-55mm, all the way to 55 (meaning that with canon 400D it's 87.5mm) focusing at 28 cm makes a macro photo? Or does it need to be closer? I managed to shoot one almost focused at 10 cm with F22.

Hi netbreak, that's an interesting point. You don't *need* a macro lens to do macro photography.

Macro photography is simply the process of photographing small subjects (or small areas) close-up so they appear bigger than we'd normally expect to see them.

All lenses have a closest focusing distance or maximum reproduction, and some are better at this than others, allowing you to take more dramatic macro shots. Does that make them a macro lens? Literally perhaps?

Macro lenses are however designed to excel at close-up work. They can focus closer and or provide greater reproductions than normal lenses. They should also be optimised to deliver the best quality when focused close rather than far.

So in answer to your question, there's no particular distance at which a normal SLR lens suddenly begins to shoot macro photos. But if you showed us a closeup shot taken with your 18-55mm, we'd probably describe it as a macro photo.

The bottom line though is if you want to get even closer (or magnify small subjects more), then you'll need a macro lens like the EF-S 60mm.

Could this be considered a macro photo?
http://netbreakteste.no.sapo.pt/isitmacro01.jpgAttention! 1.3mb image.
I reduce a bit the quality due to server limitations.
The miniature there has about 1.5 inches in height.
Taken with F8, 1/100, Iso100 and flash.

PS - I was reading Canon's EF Lens Work book last night - a bit of light reading for yours truly! - and noticed an interesting quote: that Canon refers to macro as the ability to reproduce at 1:1 (lifesize) or greater. Although that said, the 50mm macro 'only' does 1:2 without a converter...